"Employer of Last Resort" Concept

[Arkady]

OK, I'm floating an idea here for a welfare reform designed to appeal to both liberals and conservatives. The idea would be to get rid of most welfare benefits, but to have the government guarantee a full-time job to anyone who wants it, at the minimum wage. The minimum wage would be eliminated in the private sector (though private employers would effectively need to pay that much to hire people away from the government). The government would use the workers to do things that the private sector is currently neglecting (so that they don't displace private sector work). For example, these workers could pick up trash along the sides of the roads, sort recyclables, do maintenance on run-down parts of communities, visit nursing homes to work with the elderly, etc. They could also provide services that others taking those jobs need in order to do so (e.g., childcare, transportation for those without cars, etc.) In exchange for 40 hours of work per week, they'd get the paycheck, access to government health insurance, and access to subsidized job training, along with vacation pay accumulating at a rate that gives them three weeks per year. Those who refused to work could, after appropriate warnings, be fired, with some waiting period before being eligible for re-hire (to give them a taste of true poverty to motivate them). High performers would be eligible for promotion to higher-level managerial positions within the organization (those who designed and staffed the "make work" projects).

I realize there are lots of difficult details to work out, but the concept seems to have some value. First, it would keep people from malingering. I don't think that's a widespread problem today, but surely there must be some people who could get decent jobs but don't because it's easier just to pick up a welfare check for doing nothing. By forcing people to work 40 hours per week, either way, people would only stay on this form of "welfare" if they really didn't have any options that would pay better. It would also develop job skills, making the people more employable over time, adding value for the private sector. Third, it would accomplish something of value for the society with their time and that money. Non-profits would be able to petition the local work boards for some temporary staff when they had projects. For example, if you run a local summer camp for kids with cancer, and you need to winterize it at the end of every season, that's a lot of labor, and you could have the local work board send over a dozen people for a week, to help you get that done). This would also help to foster a community-mindedness in that work force.

 

[RickWA]

OK, I'm floating an idea here for a welfare reform designed to appeal to both liberals and conservatives. The idea would be to get rid of most welfare benefits, but to have the government guarantee a full-time job to anyone who wants it, at the minimum wage. The minimum wage would be eliminated in the private sector (though private employers would effectively need to pay that much to hire people away from the government). The government would use the workers to do things that the private sector is currently neglecting (so that they don't displace private sector work). For example, these workers could pick up trash along the sides of the roads, sort recyclables, do maintenance on run-down parts of communities, visit nursing homes to work with the elderly, etc. They could also provide services that others taking those jobs need in order to do so (e.g., childcare, transportation for those without cars, etc.) In exchange for 40 hours of work per week, they'd get the paycheck, access to government health insurance, and access to subsidized job training, along with vacation pay accumulating at a rate that gives them three weeks per year. Those who refused to work could, after appropriate warnings, be fired, with some waiting period before being eligible for re-hire (to give them a taste of true poverty to motivate them). High performers would be eligible for promotion to higher-level managerial positions within the organization (those who designed and staffed the "make work" projects).

I realize there are lots of difficult details to work out, but the concept seems to have some value. First, it would keep people from malingering. I don't think that's a widespread problem today, but surely there must be some people who could get decent jobs but don't because it's easier just to pick up a welfare check for doing nothing. By forcing people to work 40 hours per week, either way, people would only stay on this form of "welfare" if they really didn't have any options that would pay better. It would also develop job skills, making the people more employable over time, adding value for the private sector. Third, it would accomplish something of value for the society with their time and that money. Non-profits would be able to petition the local work boards for some temporary staff when they had projects. For example, if you run a local summer camp for kids with cancer, and you need to winterize it at the end of every season, that's a lot of labor, and you could have the local work board send over a dozen people for a week, to help you get that done). This would also help to foster a community-mindedness in that work force.

I find these sorts of concepts generally appealing (that's appealing, not appalling).

The one concern I have (and I've voiced this before) is the question of societal fortitude we can muster with respect to cutting those who won't work off from all aid, medical, etc. When there develops a subset of those eligible for this new program who will not work...who commence with the claims of obesity as disability, fibromyalgia, assorted phantoms...will we stick to our guns? Or will we have simply created yet another social program to be added to welfare entitlements.

I am not sure we have the will/fortitude to see this through. What's more, I am certain that there will emerge a certain opportunistic class of politician who will exploit the injustice of any attempt to stick to the program. Constituency will be cultivated, new policies and striated forms of specialty aid for those "caught between the cracks of the system", and...well...here we are again.

Again, I like the concept in the abstract. In application, we're a nation of exploiters and ambulance-chaser pols.

 

[ya-ta-hey]

OK, I'm floating an idea here for a welfare reform designed to appeal to both liberals and conservatives. The idea would be to get rid of most welfare benefits, but to have the government guarantee a full-time job to anyone who wants it, at the minimum wage. The minimum wage would be eliminated in the private sector (though private employers would effectively need to pay that much to hire people away from the government). The government would use the workers to do things that the private sector is currently neglecting (so that they don't displace private sector work). For example, these workers could pick up trash along the sides of the roads, sort recyclables, do maintenance on run-down parts of communities, visit nursing homes to work with the elderly, etc. They could also provide services that others taking those jobs need in order to do so (e.g., childcare, transportation for those without cars, etc.) In exchange for 40 hours of work per week, they'd get the paycheck, access to government health insurance, and access to subsidized job training, along with vacation pay accumulating at a rate that gives them three weeks per year. Those who refused to work could, after appropriate warnings, be fired, with some waiting period before being eligible for re-hire (to give them a taste of true poverty to motivate them). High performers would be eligible for promotion to higher-level managerial positions within the organization (those who designed and staffed the "make work" projects).

I realize there are lots of difficult details to work out, but the concept seems to have some value. First, it would keep people from malingering. I don't think that's a widespread problem today, but surely there must be some people who could get decent jobs but don't because it's easier just to pick up a welfare check for doing nothing. By forcing people to work 40 hours per week, either way, people would only stay on this form of "welfare" if they really didn't have any options that would pay better. It would also develop job skills, making the people more employable over time, adding value for the private sector. Third, it would accomplish something of value for the society with their time and that money. Non-profits would be able to petition the local work boards for some temporary staff when they had projects. For example, if you run a local summer camp for kids with cancer, and you need to winterize it at the end of every season, that's a lot of labor, and you could have the local work board send over a dozen people for a week, to help you get that done). This would also help to foster a community-mindedness in that work force.

Mr. Arkady,

I see merit, but the problem, I see this as becoming another government organization. SEIU will immediately jump on this as a source of funding and power, unionize it, and next thing you know, instead of a short term program to get people back on their feet, these people can't be fired, don't have to actually work, and will be demanding retirement benefits.

 

[Figjam]

...you're right, there are a LOT of difficult details to work out. On the face of it, it seems like a good idea.

Personally, I think we need to have a national service DRAFT, yes, I said it DRAFT for all young adults. Making it mandatory for all young people to either join the armed forces or a community service plan - they make the choice but they MUST join. These people would be paid, as you note minimum wage or perhaps more depending upon skills required.

 

[NightSwimmer]

Here's something that I don't understand. What, exactly, is a "welfare check"?

Drawing unemployment insurance is not welfare. Every employee pays premiums into the unemployment insurance fund while they are working, whether or not they ever receive benefits. They absolutely can't receive benefits until they have worked long enough to become vested in the system.

Does the term "welfare check" refer to SSI disability checks? It is my understanding that one must prove that they are actually disabled in order to receive a disability check. While there are surely a few who game the system and fake injuries, I wouldn't think that these shysters amount to a very large percentage of the overall number of people receiving SSI disability.

So, please enlighten me. How does one go about applying for a "welfare check". Which government agency issues these checks?

 

[ya-ta-hey]

Here's something that I don't understand. What, exactly, is a "welfare check"?

Drawing unemployment insurance is not welfare. Every employee pays premiums into the unemployment insurance fund while they are working, whether or not they ever receive benefits. They absolutely can't receive benefits until they have worked long enough to become vested in the system.

Does the term "welfare check" refer to SSI disability checks? It is my understanding that one must prove that they are actually disabled in order to receive a disability check. While there are surely a few who game the system and fake injuries, I wouldn't think that these shysters amount to a very large percentage of the overall number of people receiving SSI disability.

So, please enlighten me. How does one go about applying for a "welfare check". Which government agency issues these checks?

Mr. Swimmer,

Deadbeat bums on welfare receive welfare checks. To be fair, the term is outdated, as now they just get money added to their debit card so's theys ain'ts gotta waits around fo theys check what to come every month.

 

[lupehernandezdepedajack]

Here's something that I don't understand. What, exactly, is a "welfare check"?

Drawing unemployment insurance is not welfare. Every employee pays premiums into the unemployment insurance fund while they are working, whether or not they ever receive benefits. They absolutely can't receive benefits until they have worked long enough to become vested in the system.

Does the term "welfare check" refer to SSI disability checks? It is my understanding that one must prove that they are actually disabled in order to receive a disability check. While there are surely a few who game the system and fake injuries, I wouldn't think that these shysters amount to a very large percentage of the overall number of people receiving SSI disability.

So, please enlighten me. How does one go about applying for a "welfare check". Which government agency issues these checks?

The only Welfare check I have seen was written to an illegal alien on behalf of her anchor baby it wasn't a big check like about 115.00 a month but along with WIC and food stamps Americans kept the baby fed and with medicaid the baby never went without medical treatment. A social worker at the County Hospital made daily rounds and assisted with the folks filling out the forms....

 

[Barbella]

OK, I'm floating an idea here for a welfare reform designed to appeal to both liberals and conservatives. The idea would be to get rid of most welfare benefits, but to have the government guarantee a full-time job to anyone who wants it, at the minimum wage. The minimum wage would be eliminated in the private sector (though private employers would effectively need to pay that much to hire people away from the government). The government would use the workers to do things that the private sector is currently neglecting (so that they don't displace private sector work). For example, these workers could pick up trash along the sides of the roads, sort recyclables, do maintenance on run-down parts of communities, visit nursing homes to work with the elderly, etc. They could also provide services that others taking those jobs need in order to do so (e.g., childcare, transportation for those without cars, etc.) In exchange for 40 hours of work per week, they'd get the paycheck, access to government health insurance, and access to subsidized job training, along with vacation pay accumulating at a rate that gives them three weeks per year. Those who refused to work could, after appropriate warnings, be fired, with some waiting period before being eligible for re-hire (to give them a taste of true poverty to motivate them). High performers would be eligible for promotion to higher-level managerial positions within the organization (those who designed and staffed the "make work" projects).

I realize there are lots of difficult details to work out, but the concept seems to have some value. First, it would keep people from malingering. I don't think that's a widespread problem today, but surely there must be some people who could get decent jobs but don't because it's easier just to pick up a welfare check for doing nothing. By forcing people to work 40 hours per week, either way, people would only stay on this form of "welfare" if they really didn't have any options that would pay better. It would also develop job skills, making the people more employable over time, adding value for the private sector. Third, it would accomplish something of value for the society with their time and that money. Non-profits would be able to petition the local work boards for some temporary staff when they had projects. For example, if you run a local summer camp for kids with cancer, and you need to winterize it at the end of every season, that's a lot of labor, and you could have the local work board send over a dozen people for a week, to help you get that done). This would also help to foster a community-mindedness in that work force.

OMG!!!! I posted something like this a while back (in less words, though), and I was absolutely VILIFIED by the Left, accusing me of "racism" (yes sir, you heard that right) and of trying to steal poor peoples' DIGNITY.

I'm NOT kidding.

 

[ya-ta-hey]

OMG!!!! I posted something like this a while back (in less words, though), and I was absolutely VILIFIED by the Left, accusing me of "racism" (yes sir, you heard that right) and of trying to steal poor peoples' DIGNITY.

I'm NOT kidding.

Ms. Barbella,

Well of course you are a racist. Only white liberals can propose such programs because they have pure intent in their hearts

 

[Arkady]

I find these sorts of concepts generally appealing (that's appealing, not appalling).

The one concern I have (and I've voiced this before) is the question of societal fortitude we can muster with respect to cutting those who won't work off from all aid, medical, etc. When there develops a subset of those eligible for this new program who will not work...who commence with the claims of obesity as disability, fibromyalgia, assorted phantoms...will we stick to our guns? Or will we have simply created yet another social program to be added to welfare entitlements.

I am not sure we have the will/fortitude to see this through. What's more, I am certain that there will emerge a certain opportunistic class of politician who will exploit the injustice of any attempt to stick to the program. Constituency will be cultivated, new policies and striated forms of specialty aid for those "caught between the cracks of the system", and...well...here we are again.

Again, I like the concept in the abstract. In application, we're a nation of exploiters and ambulance-chaser pols.

Those are admittedly tough issues. To make it work, you need to be willing to make those who don't work suffer. And, since it would be unfair to make their kids suffer, this may involve taking their kids from them, at least until they get back to work. Do we have the intestinal fortitude for that? I don't know. But, in the past, we did somewhat similar things. For example, in the 1930s, lots of people were hired to do things like build trails and park facilities in our national parks, for pay that was little above subsistence levels. It worked back then, so perhaps it could work again.

When you read about some of those New Deal make-work projects, they're really very cool, not just for the way they lessened the blow of the Depression, but for the legacy they left to us today. Sometimes you'll still spot one of those old WPA plaques announcing that a particular public facility was done in that era. One of my favorite projects of the sort was a project to record the stories of former slaves. In the 1930s, the last black people in this country with first-hand experience with the era of slavery were dying out. But there were still some of them around. They tended to be illiterate and to have been largely ignored by history, so their stories weren't really known. The New Deal sent people around to record and transcribe their stories, and to this day that's an incredible treasure trove for historians seeking to understand the era from a perspective that was otherwise neglected and might have vanished completely if not for the "make work" program.

I bet if you gave some historians today the challenge of identifying some other currently-neglected stories that are dying out, which historians will be drooling over 80 years from now, they could come up with some good ideas of what you might want to record. Even stuff that might seem useless to us today might be a treasure trove in the future, like old copies of local newscasts which just get taped over or destroyed or quietly fade away, but which might seem incredibly valuable to some historian in 80 years trying to get a feel for how various kinds of local stories were thought of in our era. Hiring people to preserve those tapes might have great value down the road.

What I'd want to see, if we went that way, would be a system that would bend over backwards to accomodate any ability level. With only very extreme exceptions (like someone who is comatose, for example), pretty much anyone can do something with at least a little value with their time. It might not be enough to make employing them even a break-even proposition, but it can be something. For example, a quadrupulegic might still be able to read out loud, and so he could spend eight hours per day doing voice recordings of newspapers, so that blind people can listen to the articles. Similarly, someone who is blind could spend eight hours per day transcribing audio.

Heck, even just answering questions could be valuable. There's this well-known issue where a lot of what we think we know about psychology might be horribly skewed, because a ridiculous proportion of psychological testing and polls were performed on a single, demographically narrow test group: undergraduate students at universities... typically in the psychology or sociology department. The tests used those people because they were what was available conveniently and cheaply, but I'm sure they'd LOVE to have a nice pool of demographically very different people to re-run those same tests with, to make sure they hold up.

 

[Arkady]

...you're right, there are a LOT of difficult details to work out. On the face of it, it seems like a good idea.

Personally, I think we need to have a national service DRAFT, yes, I said it DRAFT for all young adults. Making it mandatory for all young people to either join the armed forces or a community service plan - they make the choice but they MUST join. These people would be paid, as you note minimum wage or perhaps more depending upon skills required.

My problem is the unequal protection of only making it mandatory for the young, which amounts to older people getting the benefit of the labor of others for less than the free market value of that labor, with no chance that they, too, will be forced to work for less than the free market value of their own labor. If we did a draft like this, I think everyone should be made to do it, not just the young. Possibly, to avoid disrupting people during their peak earning years, we could have those who didn't do the service when they were young do it, instead, when they were old.... basically, anyone who hadn't done the service when they were young (and hadn't been drafted into the military or something like that), would have to serve from age 65 to 67, so that it would be a natural transition to retirement, rather than an interruption of a career.

 

[Arkady]

Here's something that I don't understand. What, exactly, is a "welfare check"?

Drawing unemployment insurance is not welfare. Every employee pays premiums into the unemployment insurance fund while they are working, whether or not they ever receive benefits. They absolutely can't receive benefits until they have worked long enough to become vested in the system.

Does the term "welfare check" refer to SSI disability checks? It is my understanding that one must prove that they are actually disabled in order to receive a disability check. While there are surely a few who game the system and fake injuries, I wouldn't think that these shysters amount to a very large percentage of the overall number of people receiving SSI disability.

So, please enlighten me. How does one go about applying for a "welfare check". Which government agency issues these checks?

Unemployment isn't a check, but extended unemployment benefits are. If you're subsidizing unemployment benefits from the general revenues, rather than having it covered by the premium people pay in, then the extra is essentially a welfare check. So, in the scheme I'm talking about, you'd still be eligible for unemployment for whatever period can be paid by the general unemployment premiums, but after that you need to take one of these guaranteed jobs if you still want money from Uncle Sam.

Yes, what I'm picturing would include disability checks. Assuming you're something less than 100% disabled, you'd be expected to do some work for 8 hours per day, five days per week, 49 weeks per year, though it would be tailored to your abilities. For example, if you're a former firefighter whose bad back keeps him from firefighting any more, you could still presumably do any number of valuable jobs for society. You might, conceivably, be too disabled to get a private sector job, because there's no work you can do that's of sufficient value to cover the cost of minmum wage and other employment costs, but you can still do something useful for society with your day, in exchange for society cutting you a check.

 

[Arkady]

Mr. Swimmer,

Deadbeat bums on welfare receive welfare checks. To be fair, the term is outdated, as now they just get money added to their debit card so's theys ain'ts gotta waits around fo theys check what to come every month.

What's with your constant descent into pseudo patois when discussing such issues ("gotta waits around fo theys check wat to come every month")? It comes across as race-baiting.

 

[Arkady]

OMG!!!! I posted something like this a while back (in less words, though), and I was absolutely VILIFIED by the Left, accusing me of "racism" (yes sir, you heard that right) and of trying to steal poor peoples' DIGNITY.

I'm NOT kidding.

If you can link to it, I'd be curious whether there was something in it that suggested racism, or whether people were just reacting to your overall reputation.

 

[ya-ta-hey]

What's with your constant descent into pseudo patois when discussing such issues ("gotta waits around fo theys check wat to come every month")? It comes across as race-baiting.

Mr. Arkady,

What are you taking about? I was simply stating that the term "welfare check" is obsolete because welfare bums now gets they's money via EBT cards.

 

[Figjam]

My problem is the unequal protection of only making it mandatory for the young, which amounts to older people getting the benefit of the labor of others for less than the free market value of that labor, with no chance that they, too, will be forced to work for less than the free market value of their own labor. If we did a draft like this, I think everyone should be made to do it, not just the young. Possibly, to avoid disrupting people during their peak earning years, we could have those who didn't do the service when they were young do it, instead, when they were old.... basically, anyone who hadn't done the service when they were young (and hadn't been drafted into the military or something like that), would have to serve from age 65 to 67, so that it would be a natural transition to retirement, rather than an interruption of a career.

...the concept of mandatory National Service is to get people while young to take ownership of "something" and become engaged in our society. The more people are engaged and contributing the better for everyone. There is too much me-me-me and we have lost the sense of something "larger than ourselves", it's sad. Over time, everyone would have served at one time or another. So, in my opinion, you need to start somewhere, why not start now and 45-years from now you will have a country full of people who have served the Country. Of course, if retired people wanted to serve there should be avenues for them to follow as well. In fact here in CA retired people can volunteer to help the CHP and free up trained officers to do what they were trained to do instead of routine "paperwork".

...the service can be structured to work along with schools, businesses or part-time. Service should not be considered disruptive but something necessary and useful for a civil and functioning society...

 

[Colorforms]

OK, I'm floating an idea here for a welfare reform designed to appeal to both liberals and conservatives. The idea would be to get rid of most welfare benefits, but to have the government guarantee a full-time job to anyone who wants it, at the minimum wage. The minimum wage would be eliminated in the private sector (though private employers would effectively need to pay that much to hire people away from the government). The government would use the workers to do things that the private sector is currently neglecting (so that they don't displace private sector work). For example, these workers could pick up trash along the sides of the roads, sort recyclables, do maintenance on run-down parts of communities, visit nursing homes to work with the elderly, etc. They could also provide services that others taking those jobs need in order to do so (e.g., childcare, transportation for those without cars, etc.) In exchange for 40 hours of work per week, they'd get the paycheck, access to government health insurance, and access to subsidized job training, along with vacation pay accumulating at a rate that gives them three weeks per year. Those who refused to work could, after appropriate warnings, be fired, with some waiting period before being eligible for re-hire (to give them a taste of true poverty to motivate them). High performers would be eligible for promotion to higher-level managerial positions within the organization (those who designed and staffed the "make work" projects).

I realize there are lots of difficult details to work out, but the concept seems to have some value. First, it would keep people from malingering. I don't think that's a widespread problem today, but surely there must be some people who could get decent jobs but don't because it's easier just to pick up a welfare check for doing nothing. By forcing people to work 40 hours per week, either way, people would only stay on this form of "welfare" if they really didn't have any options that would pay better. It would also develop job skills, making the people more employable over time, adding value for the private sector. Third, it would accomplish something of value for the society with their time and that money. Non-profits would be able to petition the local work boards for some temporary staff when they had projects. For example, if you run a local summer camp for kids with cancer, and you need to winterize it at the end of every season, that's a lot of labor, and you could have the local work board send over a dozen people for a week, to help you get that done). This would also help to foster a community-mindedness in that work force.

I think, aside from the public outcry from liberals complaining about welfare mothers being torn from their children and how evil you are for expecting people to work just to get a meal, the idea has some merit.

Such a proposal was floated in Wisconsin during the Thomson adminstration. It wasn't pretty.

 

[Arkady]

...the concept of mandatory National Service is to get people while young to take ownership of "something" and become engaged in our society. The more people are engaged and contributing the better for everyone. There is too much me-me-me and we have lost the sense of something "larger than ourselves", it's sad. Over time, everyone would have served at one time or another. So, in my opinion, you need to start somewhere, why not start now and 45-years from now you will have a country full of people who have served the Country. Of course, if retired people wanted to serve there should be avenues for them to follow as well. In fact here in CA retired people can volunteer to help the CHP and free up trained officers to do what they were trained to do instead of routine "paperwork".

...the service can be structured to work along with schools, businesses or part-time. Service should not be considered disruptive but something necessary and useful for a civil and functioning society...

I see it as unequal protection. Why should those who have never served be allowed to order others to do labor for their society at sub-market wages? The only way it makes sense is if most people are going to have to serve eventually, so that the majority is writing rules for themselves, too, not just for young people who may not even have had a vote in the matter.

So, if the elderly get to do it on a voluntary basis, it should be voluntary for the young, too. If the young can be compelled to do it by law, the old should be, too. I could, however, be convinced to substitute service for surtax. For example, if the young are being compelled to do two years of service, that amounts to, let's say 4000 hours of compulsory work. So, older people who never served could be taxed such that, over their expected work life, they surrender an extra 4000 hours of the value of their labor to the government.

So, let's say you're 50, and you have another expected 15 years of work ahead of you. That's 30,000 hours of work, roughly. In order to surrender 4000 extra hours of value, you'd have a surtax of 13 percentage points. So, if your ordinary effective tax rate is 15%, you'd instead pay 28%, through age 65. That's based on the idea that those doing the 2 years of service do it for no pay. If, instead, they get some subsistence wage, then you could likewise make some subsistence wage for the older people exempt from the surtax.

Anyway, I expect that if you proposed it that way, so that EVERYBODY is doing their part equally, you could never get it passed. If, on the other hand, the vast majority of voters see it as a sacrifice they're imposing on others, costing them nothing, then it could well be popular enough to pass, for the same reason child sacrifices have been popular among adults of many cultures throughout the ages.

 

[NightSwimmer]

Mr. Arkady,

What are you taking about? I was simply stating that the term "welfare check" is obsolete because welfare bums now gets they's money via EBT cards.

You see. This is what I meant to clarify when I asked for a definition of "welfare checks". There are so many folks who spout off bumper sticker slogans about people receiving "welfare checks", I just wanted to know who these people were and what kind of check it was that they were receiving. I don't guess I've ever seen an actual "welfare check". So now it's a "welfare debit card", huh? That doesn't really clarify much.

I agree with Arkady in that extended unemployment benefits are a government subsidy that goes above and beyond the standard coverage that unemployment insurance promises. However, extended unemployment benefits only occur in response to severe economic downturns.

The other classification of "welfare" recipient is apparently the disabled. I admittedly don't know the intimate details of how our disability system operates. There seems to be a consensus among those of a conservative persuasion that most of the people receiving disability benefits don't really deserve to be classified as disabled. I find that possible, but highly unlikely. It is my understanding that it is quite a difficult process even for those who are seriously disabled to obtain the benefits. If so many people are cheating, then why don't Republicans attempt to actually put policies into place to police the fraud, rather than only advocating for eliminating the system altogether?

Who else? Who else is "on welfare"?

Food Stamp recipients? (Yeah, I know... Theys gots theysef a debit cahd nowadays)
So... SNAP benefit recipients. These are people, for the most part, who work for low wages and are still poor enough to qualify for food assistance. These folks include many of our public servants, including some of our military families. Still, we don't have to have a food assistance program.

What else? Is there anything else that Welfare Queens get? Where is all of this "free stuff" that drives Mitt Romney's 47% to vote Democrat?

Is it Medicaid? That must be a big part of it, because almost every state controlled by Republicans opted out of expanding their Medicaid programs when the SCOTUS gave them a pass on participating. As with the SNAP program, most of the Medicaid recipients are working full time and still are too poor to provide their own medical care. The others are the disabled, who weren't fortunate enough to have accumulated adequate resources to cover the cost of their medical care prior to becoming disabled.

We don't have to have any of these social welfare programs. If people are opposed to a particular program, then they should make their case for how it should be modified or why it should be abolished, rather than simply offering up a generic whine about the "welfare state". It has been my experience that folks who engage in such generic complaining about the welfare state tend to also harbor a belief that certain racial groups are given preferential treatment in regard to accessing these benefits. It has also been my experience that the very people who are receiving these benefits are often the same ones who are doing the whining. That is what I find truly ironic -- a self-loathing Welfare Republican.

 

[ya-ta-hey]

You see. This is what I meant to clarify when I asked for a definition of "welfare checks". There are so many folks who spout off bumper sticker slogans about people receiving "welfare checks", I just wanted to know who these people were and what kind of check it was that they were receiving. I don't guess I've ever seen an actual "welfare check". So now it's a "welfare debit card", huh? That doesn't really clarify much.

I agree with Arkady in that extended unemployment benefits are a government subsidy that goes above and beyond the standard coverage that unemployment insurance promises. However, extended unemployment benefits only occur in response to severe economic downturns.

The other classification of "welfare" recipient is apparently the disabled. I admittedly don't know the intimate details of how our disability system operates. There seems to be a consensus among those of a conservative persuasion that most of the people receiving disability benefits don't really deserve to be classified as disabled. I find that possible, but highly unlikely. It is my understanding that it is quite a difficult process even for those who are seriously disabled to obtain the benefits. If so many people are cheating, then why don't Republicans attempt to actually put policies into place to police the fraud, rather than only advocating for eliminating the system altogether?

Who else? Who else is "on welfare"?

Food Stamp recipients? (Yeah, I know... Theys gots theysef a debit cahd nowadays)
So... SNAP benefit recipients. These are people, for the most part, who work for low wages and are still poor enough to qualify for food assistance. These folks include many of our public servants, including some of our military families. Still, we don't have to have a food assistance program.

What else? Is there anything else that Welfare Queens get? Where is all of this "free stuff" that drives Mitt Romney's 47% to vote Democrat?

Is it Medicaid? That must be a big part of it, because almost every state controlled by Republicans opted out of expanding their Medicaid programs when the SCOTUS gave them a pass on participating. As with the SNAP program, most of the Medicaid recipients are working full time and still are too poor to provide their own medical care. The others are the disabled, who weren't fortunate enough to have accumulated adequate resources to cover the cost of their medical care prior to becoming disabled.

We don't have to have any of these social welfare programs. If people are opposed to a particular program, then they should make their case for how it should be modified or why it should be abolished, rather than simply offering up a generic whine about the "welfare state". It has been my experience that folks who engage in such generic complaining about the welfare state tend to also harbor a belief that certain racial groups are given preferential treatment in regard to accessing these benefits. It has also been my experience that the very people who are receiving these benefits are often the same ones who are doing the whining. That is what I find truly ironic -- a self-loathing Welfare Republican.

Mr. Swimmer,

Welfare is welfare, it used to be pretty well fully defined until libs looking to buy votes realized the concept was unpopular. So they changed the difinition from "aid to bums who refuse to get a job" to "long term unemployment benefits," and "handouts to bums who think a hangnail is an excuss not to work" to "SSI disability."